A simple question for hamas supporter's

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I'm taking the position that a civilian is someone who isn't in the military.

Yeah, but from there doesn't follow that all military personal are lawful targets, but you already know that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Considerably less, the IDF kills around 150 to 200 Palestinians a year, not sure about casualties.

Careful there....
It's a trick to get critics of Israel's genocide
to wade in, tacitly self-identifying as Hamas
supporters.

 

[ChristineM]

Careful there....
It's a trick to get critics of Israel's genocide
to wade in, tacitly self-identifying as Hamas
supporters.

I just went by published statistics anyone can look up, possibly even IDF numbers (after all they would know who they killed and they never lie).
So I probably won't feel much Israeli backlash

 

[Pawpatrol]

Most people killed on October 7th (and 8th) were killed by Israel. The general public (of those that I'm aware of) have accepted this fact long ago. It's laughable to still bring it up as if it made your case any better. Your case is vile.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Yeah, but from there doesn't follow that all military personal are lawful targets, but you already know that.

Morally speaking, if they are part of the military that oppresses the Palestinians, which they are, they are a perfectly reasonable target. They're on stolen land committing nothing but evil. They don't deserve peace. That is whether they "took the day off" or not.

Like "I'm on vacation from murdering Palestinians, I'm innocent, let me party in peace."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Morally speaking, if they are part of the military that oppresses the Palestinians, which they are, they are a perfectly reasonable target. They're on stolen land committing nothing but evil. They don't deserve peace. That is whether they "took the day off" or not.

Like "I'm on vacation from murdering Palestinians, I'm innocent, let me party in peace."

Yeah, we don't agree.

 

[anotherneil]

Yeah, but there are also international rules in practice for collateral damage, so all non-combatants killed in war are not illegal if you acts these rules.

Edit: Accept, not acts.

Yes, accept

Ok - from what you're saying, it sounds like under a stipulation of acceptance of these "international rules in practice for collateral damage" (including by Israel), it would be legal to slaughter innocent soldiers who'd be considered non-combatants; in this case, what's the problem? It seems like you're suggesting that there is no problem with this October 7th attack on Israel that sprung out of Gaza. Is what I'm saying accurate, or am I missing something? If it is accurate, then what would be the motive or reason for Israel's attack on Gaza after October 7th? I'm just trying to figure out what your argument is and what it leads to.

Just to be clear, I think it is justifiable for Israel to take action by going after the October 7th attackers who sprung out of Gaza and to rescue the hostages; this doesn't mean that how they did this is justified. There is no justification for being so indiscriminate and heavy handed; I see no suitable explanation (frankly - no explanation at all, actually) for why Israel didn't and isn't trying (from what I understand) to collaborate with Gaza law enforcement in a more "surgical" approach to rescue the hostages and apprehend attackers, as opposed to bombing Gaza to oblivion, given that they're claiming that it's a particular group (Hamas) that's responsible and not Gazans as a whole.

Which is it, this particular group called Hamas, or Gazans as a whole who are being indiscriminately slaughtered? Do they not know, are they unable to make up their mind about which it is, or what? It seems like Israel won't settle this question because to do so would mean conceding that they are being indiscriminate & heavy handed, and that the historical track record shows Israel to have been quite an aggressor since long before October 7th, or something that effect.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow! One has to stoop disgustingly low to peddle the Israelis are Free Game argument.

(Others may which to scan the bios of folks so nonchalantly dismissed by @9-10ths_Penguin -- perhaps beginning with Vivian Silver.)

I feel like this has been taken out of context.

 

[anotherneil]

^ Note the despicable, albeit predictable, pivot giving zero consideration to the men, women, and children who were victims of the pogrom.

^ And note the awkward & half-assed but dramatic sounding attempt at an Orwellian styled distortion and ad hom attack; this is also part of an on-going flaming effort by this particular member, and I'm not sure if it's only against me, or if it's part of some broader campaign for some particular agenda.

If you want to waste your time trying to make this about me, go right ahead; those with critical thinking skills will see through it. FYI, I don't matter & if I were to have never even existed, it wouldn't change the facts and circumstances of what's been going on in this particular Southern Levant region.

They should be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted as egregious war crimes against humanity.

Investigated and prosecuted by whom?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok - from what you're saying, it sounds like under a stipulation of acceptance of these "international rules in practice for collateral damage" (including by Israel), it would be legal to slaughter innocent soldiers who'd be considered non-combatants; in this case, what's the problem? It seems like you're suggesting that there is no problem with this October 7th attack on Israel that sprung out of Gaza. Is what I'm saying accurate, or am I missing something? If it is accurate, then what would be the motive or reason for Israel's attack on Gaza after October 7th? I'm just trying to figure out what your argument is and what it leads to.

...

Well, you do know anything about rules of engagement in war?

The rule is that you are not free to kill anybody you like and that are limits to both how to kill soldiers and non-combatants.
So my position is the opposite one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because they claim they don't doesn't necessarily mean they don't approve of Hamas' genocidal intentions against innocent Jewish people.

If you're concerned about genocide, just wait until you hear what the IDF has been doing for nearly a year now.

 

[anotherneil]

Well, you do know anything about rules of engagement in war?

Is any familiarity with a specific set of rules of engagement in war, or policies pertaining to this, necessary on my part for the questions I'm asking and arguments being analyzed? Given that we're dealing with hypotheticals/stipulations/agreements about them, it's just a matter of consistency - if everyone agrees that the rules are X, then they just need to adhere to rules X & what rules X are is beside the point.

The rule is that you are not free to kill anybody you like and that are limits to both how to kill soldiers and non-combatants.

This begs so many (philosophical) questions, such as:
Who made this rule?
Who agreed to this rule?
What if someone else has a different rule?
What if someone rejects this rule?
How was this rule formulated?
Why is this the rule, and not something else?
Is it the right rule & if so, what makes it the right rule?
Why isn't the rule simply something that just prohibits aggression?
What is the consequence for not abiding by this rule?

I suppose I could go on endlessly down this rabbit hole of philosophical questions, but the point is that maybe this rule is simply arbitrary.

Wait - there are questions about the specifics of such a rule:
If I'm not free to kill anybody I like, then what are the conditions for determining who I am allowed to kill?
What are these limits?
Who qualifies as a soldier?
Who's considered a non-combatant?

So my position is the opposite one.

Well, then it seems like you're being inconsistent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is any familiarity with a specific set of rules of engagement in war, or policies pertaining to this, necessary on my part for the questions I'm asking and arguments being analyzed? Given that we're dealing with hypotheticals/stipulations/agreements about them, it's just a matter of consistency - if everyone agrees that the rules are X, then they just need to adhere to rules X & what rules X are is beside the point.


This begs so many (philosophical) questions, such as:
Who made this rule?
Who agreed to this rule?
What if someone else has a different rule?
What if someone rejects this rule?
How was this rule formulated?
Why is this the rule, and not something else?
Is it the right rule & if so, what makes it the right rule?
Why isn't the rule simply something that just prohibits aggression?
What is the consequence for not abiding by this rule?

I suppose I could go on endlessly down this rabbit hole of philosophical questions, but the point is that maybe this rule is simply arbitrary.

Wait - there are questions about the specifics of such a rule:
If I'm not free to kill anybody I like, then what are the conditions for determining who I am allowed to kill?
What are these limits?
Who qualifies as a soldier?
Who's considered a non-combatant?


Well, then it seems like you're being inconsistent.

Yeah, it is the international laws of war in the end. But that is it.
As to if the 2 sides have done any violation of that, I leave that to the imperfect system of international law and justice.

 

[anotherneil]

Yeah, it is the international laws of war in the end. But that is it.
As to if the 2 sides have done any violation of that, I leave that to the imperfect system of international law and justice.

Who does or would administer or impose "international law and justice" on either the Israelis or the Palestinians? If you're a citizen of a nation that's involved in doing this administering or imposing, that means you may be involved in the decision-making process for that "imperfect system" by virtue of who or what you vote for. Would you prefer that your nation be involved in it, or would you prefer that it stay out of it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who does or would administer or impose "international law and justice" on either the Israelis or the Palestinians? If you're a citizen of a nation that's involved in doing this administering or imposing, that means you may be involved in the decision-making process for that "imperfect system" by virtue of who or what you vote for. Would you prefer that your nation be involved in it, or would you prefer that it stay out of it?

I prefer it to be involved.

 

[anotherneil]

I prefer it to be involved.

If you had said that you prefer that it not be involved, then it would make sense to "leave" it to that system, but wouldn't your preference for it to be involved make you responsible for playing some sort of role in what that imperfect system of international law and justice is or would be?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just because they claim they don't doesn't necessarily mean they don't approve of Hamas' genocidal intentions against innocent Jewish people.

That is a bad assumption on your part. Those criticizing the IDF here are against genocide and wanton violence amd destruction, not supporters of Hamas.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most people killed on October 7th (and 8th) were killed by Israel. The general public (of those that I'm aware of) have accepted this fact long ago. It's laughable to still bring it up as if it made your case any better. Your case is vile.

What? You believe Israel conducted that attack?

 

[libre]

No, I'm taking the position that a civilian is someone who isn't in the military.

It appears to me that you insinuated more than that by your inclusion of the word 'innocent' below. I can accept that my prior question may have been inaccurate due to my own conjecture.

To make sure that I am interpreting your statement below correctly:

How many of the Oct. 7 casualties were truly innocent civilians?

I think it would be insightful for you to clarify.

How many casualties do you think were civilians?
and
How many casualties do you think were 'innocent civilians'?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suppose I could go on endlessly down this rabbit hole of philosophical questions, but the point is that maybe this rule is simply arbitrary.

It's not philosophical but law. Ya know, like when someone ends up in international court over war crimes and crimes against humanity?